mos1833

this is the form ,i would like to compare this form with some one else. please interprete it ,thanks Attached File my seperation.pdf 53.27KB 9 downloads Edited by mos1833, Today, 06:24 PM.

71m10 thanks so you agree with there interpretation of what is on that document ??

71m10 .thanks i did sign that document. but it does not say that my back was normal. the va used this document as proof against my lay evidence. they also say,that there was no complaints noted. where it says fit or not fit was left blank. sorry i am just confused, thanks again

this is the form ,i would like to compare this form with some one else. please interprete it ,thanks my seperation.pdf

that sucks john

conserdition.pdf above is part of my last denial, here is what i think is a wrong decision ,they didnt even consider my lay evidence,because of the seperation exam which they say says my back was normal at seperation.but there is no such document,

ived tryed to post my interance exam,hope this works, thanks 2nd try.pdf

the va skipped the rater in my claim, and made there decesion based the interpretation of how the examiner concluded,useing the va specific referenced questions,as you can see below. what do you think, thanks following a comprehensive review of the claims folder and a thorough examination of the Veteran. In rendering her opinion, the examiner cited to the Veteran's inservice treatment, the lack of treatment in the years immediately following service, and the specific fmdings made by the various examiners/treating physicians located in the claims folder. She also addressed the specific findings which the Board referenced in its March 2010 remand when rendering her opinion, noting any inconsistencies that were contained in the report/examinations.

i just added the doucment ived been talking about in the above thread. the va says it carrys more weight then all my evidence. the examiners also quoted this document as most convincing that my back was normal when i was seperated. but thats the wrong interpretation.

jbasser thanks my vso filed the cue on an earlier decision of the same claim in 1985 i appealed the decision they had just made,( the information i suppiied was not new ) does that make since ?

carlie thanks i cant figure out how to copy and paste, i use to just left click and drag it and the right click the hi-lited part then click to copy,then i would come to the thread and paste , but something has changed on my computer so that dont work no more , but ill try to thanks

this is crazy , i filed a cue in 2002,at the same time i appealed the same claim with new evidence and it was reopened and denied again,but they never said any thing about my cue claim. so i filed a request as to why , today i called to find out why its taking so long to get the information i requested.and john said i had already been informed of there decision in a letter they sent me , the letter they sent me was just a notice that they received my inquiry and gave it a number so i could follow it progress. the letter also had a copy of the last denial of my claim. so john said today that the letter was to answer my request, he said that my cue was decided in the last decision of my claim, ( a copy was included in this letter ) and he said it was denied with-in that decision. so i said that decision did not say any thing about my cue; he said it didnt need to,he asured me that it had been decided even tho they didnt point it out. i said a cue is a seperate claim , he said it wasent and was decided in the last decision. he said ide need to reopen my back claim to get to the bottom of this. he said he could do it for me over the phone, so i said o.k. this cant be right. thanks

As I recall (but I could be wrong) the VA said there had been no Discharge certificate found in your Mil records or nothing else to support a back disability/injury inservice. You relied on buddy statements from family members If your handle here, MOS 1833, is Assault Amphibian Crewman ,UCMC, berta, thanks again the va said there was a discharge certificate and used it against my claim,and so did all the c/p examiners as the most probative evidence against all my claim including my lay teastemony. thats there smokeing gun. but guess what ??? it not there. ived asked them to show it , but they never do respond,there is a form 88 but what they say it says is totally wrong, they say it says i had a normal back condition at seperation,its just the oppsit, and its not even signed. and yes i am a tractor rat mos - 1833 and proud of it but i was attatched to so many out fits for such short periods of time,no body recalls me in there outfit. below is what they say is proof my back was normal at seperation. my seperation.pdf and they used it against my lay evidence. the number for the bva dont work for me , it says to redial and try again. i never filed fdc claim yet ,not sure it the right thing to do at this time. i was thinking that a dro might let me show the fools what in my file and whats not, thanks all

you are sooo right berta gives good info,and so does the rest here at hadit including your self. thanks to all.

thanks lotzaspotz my claim is so screwed up and i ask for help here at hadit many times and got it.; but now i just dont know, so i guess ill start over again, thanks

if my claim is closed,, can i ask for a dro metting to try and explain how the va screwed up my claim ? thanks

i thought my exit exam was on a standard form 88, am i wrong , thanks 63

thanks for the quick reply berta i was trying to see how this would be connected to an analogous rating and the use of hyphenated codes for unlisted condications.

could some body , break this down a little thanks §4.21 Application of rating schedule. In view of the number of atypical instances it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will, however, be expected in all instances. [41 FR 11293, Mar. 18, 1976]

thanks philip heres how i do it. i go to ==us court of appeals for veterans claims-case docket search -before october 2008 i just type in ( 02-2299 ) or my last name nunley, thats the claim where it went to the federal circuit.= 8/27/04 ( 04-7159 ) if that dont work let me know, thanks

thanks berta, phililp, and all as you well know iam not very smartt. it all confusses me to the point i just cant explain what i want to say. see if this makes any sence, below are the docket numbers at the ro. 95-42 640 at the court , 02-2299 at the federal circuit , 2004-7159 = issued as mandate 4/28/08 that is all up to and including 2008 i was at these courts more after 2008 i hope this make sense, thanks

i dont think you understand my question philip. why would i need to reopen this claim. it was already send back to the bva by the court,then the secretary appealed the courts decesion sending it to the federal circuit,the federal circuit agreed the court decesion. which was a remand. but when it got back to the bva is my question ( why would a remand require new evidence to reopen ) at that point in the process. thanks all

in 2004 the court of appeals vacated and remanded my claim. in that same year the secretary opposed that decision and appealed it to the federal circuit. in 2008 the usca for fedeal circuit, summarily affirmed the remand of 2004,and issued the decision as a mandate . with that said, why would i need new evidence to reopen the claim when it got back to the court. thanks

thanks 71m10 no it was 5299-5295 the point iam trying to make is ( was i rated at all )then i think zero would be out with use any hyphenated diagnosic code. §4.31 Zero percent evaluations. In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. [58 FR 52018, Oct. 6, 1993

i just found this, it explains codes used for %10 ratings. where does my 5299-5295 rating fit in ? what does compensable or noncompensable mean ? thanks 5. Until December 13, 2005, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Adjudication Procedures Manual M21-1, Part VI, 11.06f, stated: If there is any limitation of motion together with deformity (compensable or noncompensable), add 10 percent under hyphenated diagnostic code 5285-5290 (limited motion of the cervical spine), 5285-5291 (limited motion dorsal spine), or 5285-5292 (limited motion lumbar spine). Whenever there is muscle spasm together with deformity and the requirements for a compensable evaluation under diagnostic code 5295 are met, add 10 percent to the assigned evaluation under diagnostic code 5285-5295. This provision is consistent with the view that a maximum increase of 10 percent for vertebral deformity may be added to the rating assigned to a spinal segment based on limited motion or muscle spasm. Although the Manual M21-1 does not contain substantive rules subject to public notice and comment, it provides institutional guidance to VBA’s adjudicators as to the interpretation and application of VA’s regulations. Indeed, in the veteran’s case discussed in the opinion request, the regional office applied the 10-percent provision only once, consistent with the interpretation discussed above.